I'm sorry, but you keep reading things into my posts that aren't there, and as a result you are attacking straw men in your responses.
All I am really arguing here is that if we have laws that protect privacy and limit use of personal data for whatever we consider good reasons in a certain jurisdiction, those laws must apply equally to online sources and data processing within that same jurisdiction. What those laws are and what reasons we might consider good enough to prioritise privacy over other relevant factors is a vast and complicated area, and today's situation was reached after numerous debates by smart and thoughtful people.
You seem to be interested in promoting some sort of anti-government agenda here. Don't trust the government, fear its power over the people, and all that. In other contexts, perhaps I might agree with some of your concerns there. But this issue, the one we're talking about right now, has really very little to do with excessive government power or state censorship. This is simply about enforcing laws we already have, made with good intentions, written in reasonable terms, and with the purpose of protecting vulnerable people from unjust harm. That is no more an abuse of government power than having police officers legally allowed to use force against you if you're literally beating up another person in the street, because that police action is an infringement of your right to free expression or something.
You have already spoken in favor of jailing developers in one jurisdiction because they don't implement legal censorship you favor in your jurisdiction regardless of the laws in their jurisdiction where exactly does THAT road end?
You have proposed we make a secret book of illegal truths unknowable to the general public that we cannot even protest effectively without running afoul of the laws prohibition of their publication.
If you simply support delisting such inconvenient truths from google then your work is for naught as I will simply publish a list of such truths. If you support whitewashing the entire internet of them then you have proposed we impliment 1984 for the sake of helping bad people move on with their lives after learning better. Backed up by threats of violence and imprisonment from your nations thugs.
Rather than buying their peace of mind with my freedom I propose you spend your own nations money to support programs that will employ, educate, and provide therapy to help them move on.
I have done no such things, and in fact several of my comments in this HN discussion have said very much the opposite of what you described, as anyone who cares to read a few comments up can immediately verify. You're just making stuff up now, and as such I see no value in continuing this thread any further.
You said if someone was to publish a search engine for illegal truths they would be jailed in the EU.
You are continually framing the right to silence others as some sort of right.
You ought to note that such rights normally derive from obligations to those whom you entrusted your data in the first place.
Your doctor nor his staff may share your medical information. Either explicitly in an agreement or implicitly by law you gained the right to expect that your information remain confidential when you became his patient.
When you mug someone and break their face no amount of jail time and rehabilitation obliges your victim nor society at large to silence.
You imagine all of society possesses an obligation that rightly attaches only to those with relevant relationships like employee/employer, doctor patient etc.
You cannot attach such an obligation without grossly limiting freedom and such an obligation attached to no human right I can imagine.
Your position isn't merely badly thought out its morally wrong. If you can no longer discuss it then I'll drop it.
All I am really arguing here is that if we have laws that protect privacy and limit use of personal data for whatever we consider good reasons in a certain jurisdiction, those laws must apply equally to online sources and data processing within that same jurisdiction. What those laws are and what reasons we might consider good enough to prioritise privacy over other relevant factors is a vast and complicated area, and today's situation was reached after numerous debates by smart and thoughtful people.
You seem to be interested in promoting some sort of anti-government agenda here. Don't trust the government, fear its power over the people, and all that. In other contexts, perhaps I might agree with some of your concerns there. But this issue, the one we're talking about right now, has really very little to do with excessive government power or state censorship. This is simply about enforcing laws we already have, made with good intentions, written in reasonable terms, and with the purpose of protecting vulnerable people from unjust harm. That is no more an abuse of government power than having police officers legally allowed to use force against you if you're literally beating up another person in the street, because that police action is an infringement of your right to free expression or something.